1 Indiana Undergraduate Journal of Cognitive Science 4 (2009) Copyright 2009 IUJCS. All rights reserved Can Neuroscience Inform the Free Will Debate? Brandi Jo Newell Psychology Wellesley College Armchair philosophers, professional philosophers and even reluctant, first-year students in introductory philosophy classes have all been drawn in by the tremendously interesting and equally frightening question: Do we have free will? Some find solace in Cartesian dualism, 1 but the rest of us monists 2 are left to grapple with the inconsistency between our intuitive feeling that we are free to make our own decisions and the knowledge that our minds operate within what science assumes to be a deterministic universe. For millennia, this question has been approached theoretically, but new neuroscientific findings may give researchers the ability to broach the subject experimentally. The discussion has not just moved from the salon to the laboratory, but also to the newsroom, where lay press articles have been cropping up with ominous titles like Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don t (Overbye, 2007), The Brain on the Stand (Rosen, 2007), and Case Closed on Free Will? (Youngsteadt, 2008). Undoubtedly, the revived academic and public interest in this age-old debate stems from the profound moral and legal implications that rest on the idea that humans have free will. This paper seeks to establish whether or not the new findings can, in fact, inform the free will debate and, if so, what that means for society s conceptions of moral and legal responsibility. The first section draws the battle lines by explaining both sides of the debate and defining the terms that will be used for the remainder of the paper. The second section takes up the question of neuroscience s ability to weigh in on the dispute, and the third addresses the possible moral and legal ramifications. Section 1: Free will, Determinism and Compatibilism The standard free will debate has been framed as incompatibilist either the world is deterministic, precluding free will (as so-called hard determinists believe), or it is not, and 1 Rene Descartes proposed that the mind and body are made of separate but interacting substances. Because the mind is a nonphysical substance, it is not subject to the physical laws that govern the rest of the world (and, therefore, its actions are not governed by deterministic principles). Due to this separation, dualists can believe in both determinism and free will, escaping the debate all together. 2 Monists believe that the world is comprised of only one substance a physical substance, in the case of materialists as opposed to separate substances for mind and body.
2 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 55 free will is possible (as libertarians 3 would argue). In other words, free will and determinism have been pitted against each other as mutually exclusive opposites. Others (aptly referred to as compatibilists ) disagree and see free will and determinism as entirely compatible. I argue that free will and determinism are tightly interwoven concepts, albeit not necessarily opposites. Pulling their meanings apart from one another can be helpful in deciding if and how neuroscientific research is relevant to the free will debate. Further, I contend that modern compatibilist arguments are flawed, and that free will (as we intuitively think of it) cannot exist in a determined world. Determinism Determinism has been defined as the idea that every event is caused by an antecedent event and governed by the laws of nature (Van Inwagen, 1982). The opposite of determinism, then, would be a belief that every event is uncaused and is not governed by the laws of nature. In other words, chaos or randomness (not free will!) is the opposite of determinism. Determinism is best conceptualized as a spectrum with determinism on one side, chaos on the other, and different degrees to which events follow laws and causal relationships in between. While it is very uncomfortable to think that all of our decisions are determined by events set into motion millions of years ago and that it is not really the self who is in charge, it may be even more uncomfortable to think of our decisions as undetermined. As many philosophers have pointed out (Churchland, 2004; Dennett, 1984; Hume, 1739; Wegner, 2002;), no one would be happy if her decisions were entirely random unrelated to her beliefs, desires and temperament; we would not think of these decisions as being free, any more than we would events that were entirely determined by physical laws. Note that this is not good news for the libertarian argument, which holds that free will can exist because determinism is false. In addition to the fact that indeterminism is no more satisfying than determinism for either side of the argument, it also lacks any form of evidentiary support. There is ample evidence pointing to determinism, however each time we drop a pencil and it falls to the ground with an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second, we are confirming that events in the world operate according to unchanging laws in this case, the laws of gravity. Each time we put a pot of water on the stove to boil, we are implicitly relying on the deterministic principles of cause and effect: the heat causes the hydrogen and oxygen molecules to move at a faster pace. Quantum theorists will be quick to note the inherent unpredictability of subatomic particles, but few would challenge the claim that the world can still be described as operating within a system of laws. The chance that these laws of nature might not accurately predict the state of the world is infinitesimally small and can effectively be thought of as zero. Thus, while the world might not fall on the exact end of the determined 3 The term libertarian is used here separately from its definition in political philosophy.
3 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 56 side of the spectrum, as far as our current scientific knowledge can tell, it is almost indistinguishably close to it. Free Will Unfortunately, it seems that our common sense notion of free will is flawed regardless of one s opinion on determinism: free will is impossible in a world that is determined (so that our choices are made for us by the laws of physics, cause, and effect), undetermined (so that our choices are selected randomly without relation to our goals and opinions), or anywhere in between (so that some of our choices are determined by laws and some of them selected randomly). Intuitively, we think of free will as our ability to choose whether or not and how to act. However, in the context of the current discussion, that seems like an unrealistic expectation. What we are really referring to (or, at least, should be) when we talk about free will is the extent to which we feel that we are in control of our decisions and actions. For example, one would feel freer if she indulged in a chocolate ice cream cone because she were craving chocolate than if she did so because someone held a gun to her head and ordered her to lick or die. As with determinism, it is helpful to think of free will as existing on a continuum (although a separate one), with the feeling of free will on one end and the feeling of complete constraint, or to put it in legal terms, compulsion, on the other (i.e., the gun-tothe-head scenario). We spend most of our time, I would wager, near the feeling of free will side, with occasional constraints (i.e., my doctor said I shouldn t eat sweets; I m too tired to go to the ice cream parlor) pushing us in the opposite direction. In other words, free will is the perception of freedom by agents acting in the world. I say perception, because we may not (and probably do not) have an accurate understanding of the extent to which we are constrained and probably overestimate the amount of autonomy we actually exercise. Although we feel a qualitative difference between eating chocolate ice cream because it tastes good and being forced to do so under the threat of death, that difference may be illusory especially given what we know about determinism and indeterminism. If we assume that we are living in a deterministic universe, and that all of our actions are caused, then we are under an equal amount of compelling force in both cases (the craving vs. the gun). If we assume that we are living in an indeterministic universe, the compelling forces are still equal: equally random. Any assumption in the middle of the spectrum would be similarly unfulfilling. The distinction we sense between the gun and the craving comes from the differential saliency of the compelling forces. This, I argue, is at the root of what makes us feel as though we have free will; we feel that we are free when we are unaware of the compelling forces at work (because they are subtle and, in many cases, unknown), and we feel that we are less free when we are aware of the compelling forces, as when we are staring down the barrel of a shot gun. One could empirically test this hypothesis by having participants read multiple scenarios in which people make decisions based on compelling forces that vary in saliency. Participants would rate how free the person is in each scenario. I predict that their freedom ratings would decrease as the saliency of the compelling forces increased.
4 Compatibilism B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 57 Given this new, proposed definition of free will, let us consider compatibilist arguments. As mentioned earlier, compatibilists believe that it is plausible for us to have a meaningful kind of free will in a deterministic universe. Although compatibilist arguments vary, a particularly helpful summary by Gifford (2007) characterizes the most common, modern compatibilist argument as follows: Compatibilists hold that free will exists as long as the agent is not subject to outside coercion. As long as our actions are a product of our own reasons for taking those actions, as long as they spring from our personal beliefs and preferences, even though those reasons, beliefs, and preferences are a product of a deterministic universe, we have free will. (p. 273) When compatibilists admit that the reasons, beliefs, and preferences are a product of a deterministic universe, they are essentially agreeing with my contention that we are always under the influence of compelling forces. However, they claim that we have free will as long as the agent is not subject to outside coercion. These two statements are contradictory. As I have demonstrated, regardless of whether the world is determined, undetermined, or anywhere in between, we are always subject to outside coercion; we just feel that we are not when the forces that are compelling us are unknown or lack saliency. It seems that the compatibilists fall prey to this ever-convincing illusion. Their argument could be accurately restated as such: one is free as long as the compelling forces that are motivating her decisions are not salient, e.g. we are free when we feel that we are free. As persuasive as our feelings of free will may be, they are illusory, and feeling that we are in control of our decisions and actions is not the same as actually being in control. Unfortunately, as Greene and Cohen (2004) pointed out, there is no way around the fact that intuitive free will is inherently libertarian, not compatibilist. And as we have seen, libertarian doctrine does not stand up to the test of science. Thus, with both libertarianism and compatibilism knocked out of the running, we are left with hard determinism and a diminished form of illusory free will. Section II: Can Neuroscience Inform the Free Will Debate? Since it has been established that determinism and free will are actually separate (though related) issues, I will consider neuroscience s relevance to them individually. I have also demonstrated that libertarian and compatibilist arguments leave much to be desired. Even so, many people still cling to libertarian and compatibilist philosophies. Let us examine how neuroscience can add to the free will debate.
5 Determinism B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 58 As discussed earlier, although most of the scientific community agrees that the world is deterministic, the consensus is not unanimous, and there is even more contention about the matter outside of the field. Despite decades of research (and, for those of us who have not witnessed miracles, personal experience) all pointing to the conclusion that every event has a cause and operates according to unchanging, physical laws, some are still left unconvinced. This is not entirely surprising considering how distinctly ours the decisions we make seem. While neuroscience cannot prove that determinism is true anymore than previous research has, it can lend some pretty convincing supporting evidence. I hypothesize that neuroscience s specific brand of evidence will be even more persuasive especially to the lay public than previous research has been, because it deals not with the theory of relativity or the continued accuracy of the laws of gravity or thermodynamics, but with the very seat of the human mind. For centuries, it has been easy to put the mind up on a pedestal and claim that it operates by fundamentally different rules from the rest of the world. But if the days of acceptance for Descartes proposed animal spirits 4 and other similar types of sloppy metaphysics have not yet passed, they are now in their final hoorah. With functional neuroimaging and other emerging neurotechnologies, we are now capable of opening the black box of the brain and peering in, at least to a greater extent than ever before an ability that will shake the brain s pedestal, if not knock it down entirely. Although neuroscience cannot revolutionize the free will vs. determinism argument itself, it may revolutionize the way people think about it, as experimental evidence hits closer and closer to home. For example, by utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri), researchers are able to observe which areas of the brain are active as participants engage in experimental tasks. In one study by Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, and Cohen (2004), participants were scanned while making difficult moral decisions. Greene and his colleagues found that the neural activation varied systematically depending on whether the dilemma was of a personal or impersonal nature. Additionally, depending on the relative activation of the brain centers associated with cognitive and emotional processing, one could make relatively accurate predictions as to how the participants would respond to the questions being posed. Another experiment by Huettel, Stowe, Gordon, Warner, and Platt (2006) found that differential levels of activation within the lateral prefrontal cortex during a gambling task could predict participants preferences for risk taking and general behavioral impulsiveness. Looking at studies like these, it seems evident that the neural activations researchers are detecting have a causal relationship with the behavior being observed. It also seems clear that it is not an immaterial soul that is at work during the decision-making processes, but a very material brain. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine a task that would be more under the soul s jurisdiction than solving a moral dilemma. If the brain is at work solving even this most sacred problem, chances are good (and research points to the conclusion) that the brain 4 Descartes proposed that the brain contained animal spirits which allowed the mind and the brain to communicate by passing through the pineal gland.
6 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 59 is, in fact, in charge of all of our cognitive functions. As these and other studies suggest increasingly mechanistic views of the way the brain works, it is becoming harder and harder to deny that it operates according to the same physical laws as the rest of the universe. As new neuroscientific knowledge pushes conclusions toward the determinism end of the determinism vs. chaos spectrum, we inevitably think about what this means for the free will vs. constraint spectrum. Let us consider how these findings may affect our perceptions of free will. Free Will Earlier, I defined free will as a subjective feeling, which depends on the extent to which the actor feels that her choices are constrained by outside forces. I hypothesized that it is the saliency of the compelling forces that affects one s feeling of freedom, with less obvious determinants leading to lesser feelings of constraint. For instance, it is now clear that our genetics and the environment in which we grew up play large roles in the way that we act and the decisions that we make. Nevertheless, because these types of compelling forces are not salient to us on a day-to-day basis, we do not generally feel that we are constrained by them; it is only when pressed to stop and reflect that we discern that our actions are (at least to some extent) products of our biology and upbringing. Neuroscience will probably play a similar role in our feelings toward free will. Although it is unlikely that we will dramatically change the way we think about our freedom as we shuffle through our daily tasks, when we pause to consider the reality of our condition, we will be forced to admit that we are constrained by the electro- and biochemical mechanisms silently at work within our brains. As was previously illustrated, fmri studies have already begun to elucidate the mechanisms by which our brains make decisions, and faster, more accurate technology is sure to arrive in the near future. Other studies have shown even more direct evidence that our feelings of free will are illusory. Libet, Gleason, Wright, and Pearl (1983) published a series of landmark and controversial experiments in which participants indicated when they had come to the conscious decision to execute spontaneous, voluntary movements. This time was compared to the onset of the readiness potential associated with the preparation of motor activity, as recorded by electrodes on the scalp. Libet et al. concluded that participants were not conscious of their decisions to make movements until several hundred milliseconds after the first related cortical activity was detected. While the methods of this experiment have been questioned, more recent follow-up studies (Lau, Rogers, & Passingham, 2006; Lau, Rogers, & Passingham, 2007) have shown similar findings, indicating that our brains know that we are going to move before we do. As neuroscience has advanced, our conscious knowledge of our intentions has become more questionable, and the causal relationship between the brain and our behavior has become more evident. As the field continues to progress, it is inevitable that the physical, compelling forces involved in our decision-making processes will be more widely understood and, thus, more salient. And just as the presence of a salient compelling force caused greater
7 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 60 feelings of constraint in the gun example, so, too, will the increased salience and knowledge of the biological underpinnings of our minds. It is in this way that neuroscience will affect our notions of free will. I would like to reiterate, however, that even with this new knowledge, on a regular basis we will continue to feel largely free. We have been groomed by evolution for thousands of years to operate in this way, and so we will continue to do so. Because of this, we will probably still attribute relative freedom to others as well, and make casual judgments of responsibility just as we did before blaming our friends when they are late for a dinner party and punishing our children for not cleaning their rooms however, as the salience of determinism limits our conceptions of free will, we will be forced to reassess how we deal with responsibility in more formal contexts. I turn now to examine the most formal of all contexts for responsibility in our society: the penal system. Section III: Neuroscience and Responsibility Legal punishment is classically divided into two theories of justification: retributivism and consequentialism. Retributivism is based on the idea of just deserts one should be punished because he deserves it, even if punishing him will not lead to any measurable benefits for society. Consequentialism, on the other hand, is based on a more utilitarian view, whereby people should be punished because it keeps them from doing more harm to the public and deters other potentially dangerous individuals from committing future crimes. If, as I hypothesize, the public becomes more sympathetic to a deterministic worldview and no longer believes that people possess what we have previously, intuitively called free will, what will this mean for the retributivist and consequentialist justifications for punishment? Determinism and the Retributivist Theory of Punishment If determinism is true (e.g., if the universe has operated according to set physical laws since the dawn of time and has proceeded forward in the only way possible given the constraints of those laws) then it seems that no one could ever deserve to be punished. After all, we do not blame minors or the mentally ill because we deem that they are not fully in control of their actions and should not be held responsible. Under the assumption of a deterministic universe, we all lack control, and if the only justification for punishment is to give the agent what s coming to him, it is inherently unfair to hold anyone responsible for his or her actions, as agents who lack control should not be punished. While it may initially seem counterintuitive to do away with retributive punishment, even under deterministic conditions, the following thought experiment should help to elucidate the argument: If someone were holding a gun to Steve s head and ordering Steve to shoot Mary, we would not blame Steve because he did not have a choice in the matter. We would all agree that he was compelled to act by outside forces and understand why he felt as though he was at the constrained end of the free will spectrum. If Steve shot Mary because he
8 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 61 had a large tumor in his frontal lobe that was affecting his ability to inhibit his actions (and we were completely confident that it was the tumor that led to the action), after analysis, a reasonable person would say that he was equally as constrained in this case as he was in the previous scenario. Even though it is not quite as obvious to us (as the compelling force is less salient), we understand that he was unable to stop himself from pulling the trigger because of a biological condition out of his control, and, thus, he is equally as blameless as before. Now, let us take this one step further: What if Steve did not have a brain tumor, but just happened to have been born such that the mechanisms in his frontal lobes were slightly and undetectably abnormal? He shot Mary as a result of his innately poor inhibition abilities. Would he still be in the clear? To be consistent, we must answer yes. He is just as constrained by his biology in this case as he was in the last scenario, but the compelling force is even less salient than before. We are all constrained by our biology. Every decision we make is a result of the way our brains have evolved, our individual genetic differences, and the way our environments have molded us. Our brains are physical hunks of matter that are subject to the laws of physics. We did not design our brains, and we certainly did not dictate our genetics, environments or the laws of physics. Therefore, our decisions are out of our control, and if retributivism is our only rationale for punishment and moral responsibility, we should never punish or blame anyone for her actions, and our judicial system needs a dramatic makeover. However, others disagree with this analysis and claim that there is currently nothing neuroscience can throw at the law that would render it as helpless as the previous argument implies. In a meeting with the President s Bioethics Counsel (2003), legal scholar Stephen Morse laid out his point of view very clearly: All that is required to hold an agent legally responsible is rationality. Neuroscience cannot yet prove that we are not rational actors, and it is very unlikely that it will do so in the future. Therefore, our penal system will remain unaffected. The law does not care if we are free in any philosophical, metaphysical sense; as long as the criminal is rational, regardless of why or how he is considered to be rational, he is culpable for his crime. Morse pointed out that science will continue to be useful in helping us figure out whether or not people were rational agents at the time that they committed their crimes (i.e. was the defendant sleep walking or temporarily insane), but until neuroscience shows that we are, in general, incapable of rational thought processes, the law is safe. Morse s argument sounds pretty good on the surface; I agree with his analysis that current and future neuroscientific findings cannot and will not undermine the law in its current framework. However, I join Josh Greene and Jonathan Cohen (2004) in arguing that as society adopts a more deterministic worldview and moves toward the conclusion that humans do not have free will in the intuitive sense that was previously assumed, our moral intuitions will adapt to reflect this knowledge and become incompatible with the penal system in its present form. As Greene and Cohen put it, The legitimacy of the law depends on its adequately reflecting the moral intuitions and commitments of society. The real trouble for the law is rooted not in the fact that the existing system is unable to handle new neuroscientific developments, but rather, in the more profound problem that the law is no longer consistent with our changing view of free will and therefore, moral responsibility.
9 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 62 Determinism and the Consequentialist Theory of Punishment In order to remain in line with our moral intuitions, it seems that our justice system must give up on the retributive justification for punishment. However, as long as the consequentialist argument for punishment can hold up to determinism, there may still be a place for the penal system (albeit a modified version) that is consistent with our changing moral understandings. The reader will remember that consequentialist accounts of punishment are not based on backward-looking ideas of just deserts, but on forward-looking ideas of prevention: It is justifiable to punish those who infringe on the rights of other members of society because it will detain current criminals (and thus keep them from doing more harm) and deter future criminals. This explanation of punishment is consistent with determinism because it does not necessitate that the criminal be held morally accountable. He is not punished because he was in control of his decisions and made a poor choice, but because he is a danger to the public. Taking away his rights will ensure that he will not cause any further harm, and his incarceration will serve as a disincentive to others who, without the threat of punishment, may have acted similarly in the future. But for every point, there is a counterpoint: Goodenough (2004) argued that consequentialist punishment, just like retributive punishment, relies on an assumption of free will and is, therefore, null and void in a deterministic universe. He claims that when we base our justification of punishment on the value of deterrence, we are making an implicit commitment to the idea that the criminal had the capacity to fully integrate the threat of punishment into [his/her] decision-making calculus, and to act accordingly, i.e. as if he/she had a kind of free will (pp. 1807). The problem with Goodenough s (2004) argument is that one s ability to incorporate the costs of punishment does not depend on his being free. Our brain includes new factors into its decision-making every day I feel hungry; considering this new piece of information, my brain weighs the options and decides that the best course of action is to eat in the near future. The threat of punishment can be treated like any other parameter we consider as we go through our days Steve was jailed for shooting Mary; considering this new piece of information, my brain weighs the options and decides that the best course of action is to not shoot people. The consequentialist argument does not rely on an assumption of free will, but merely an assumption that we are capable of incorporating new information into our decision-making processes, and this just happens to be the brain s specialty. Therefore, despite Goodenough s objection, the consequentialist justification for punishment stands up to the exacting test of determinism. With this established, it seems that our penal system should not be entirely tossed out, but refurbished under the assumption that the goal of punishment is entirely consequentialist, rather than retributivist. (See Greene and Cohen (2004) for a more fully articulated version of this argument.) Summary and Conclusion The present paper explored the extent to which neuroscientific findings can inform the free will debate. I argued that neuroscience s most direct contribution to the argument will be
10 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 63 convincing support for determinism that resonates with the public in a way that no scientific evidence ever has before. Additionally, while this may alter our views of free will theoretically and affect the way we think about moral responsibility and our legal system, we will most likely feel as free on a day-to-day basis as ever before. Although it will take time and work for our justice system to reflect our new understanding of responsibility, it is possible to retain a formal system of punishment in a deterministic world. My interpretation of the free will vs. determinism debate may seem, to some, unfulfilling, incomplete, or just plain wrong. But regardless of one s opinions on the topic, it is important that society keep one eye on new research and one eye on its implications. While the answer to the free-will debate may still elude us, we must continue to discuss this age-old question any time new evidence emerges, as our concepts of moral responsibility rest on the answer s implications. It is important that our justice system continues to reflect society s moral intuitions, wherever they may lead us; as our self-knowledge changes, so must the law. References Churchland, P. S. (2005). Moral decision-making and the brain In J. Illes (Ed.), Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice and Policy (pp. 3-16). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Dennett, D. (2003). Freedom Evolves. New York, New York: Viking. Gifford, A. (2007). The knowledge problem, determinism, and The Sensory Order. The Review of Austrian Economics, 20, Goodenough, O. (2004). Responsibility and punishment: whose mind? A response. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B (Special Issue on Law and the Brain), Greene, J.D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict in moral judgement. Neuron, 44, Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., & Platt, M. L. (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49, Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1967) Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983), Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential): The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106, Nahmias, E. (2006). Folk fears about freedom and responsibility: Determinism vs. reductioninsm. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, Nichols, S. (2004). The folk psychology of free will: fits and starts. Mind and Language, 19,
11 B. Newell / IUJCS 4 (2009) 64 Nichols, S. (2006). Folk intuitions on free will. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, Overbye, D. (2007, January 2). Free will: Now you have it, now you don t. The New York Times, pp. F1. Rosen, J. (2007, March 11). The brain on the stand. The New York Times Review, 11. Van Inwagen, P. (1982). The incompatibility of free will and determinism. In G. Watson (Ed.), Free will (pp ). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of the conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford. Youngsteadt, E. (2008, April 14). Case closed for free will? ScienceNOW Daily News. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from
Free Will Freedom: To possess freedom of choice is to possess the ability to do otherwise. Furthermore, if one is NOT able to do otherwise (i.e., if one is not free), then one is not responsible for their
Michael Lacewing Descartes arguments for distinguishing mind and body THE KNOWLEDGE ARGUMENT In Meditation II, having argued that he knows he thinks, Descartes then asks what kind of thing he is. Discussions
Michael Lacewing Substance dualism A substance is traditionally understood as an entity, a thing, that does not depend on another entity in order to exist. Substance dualism holds that there are two fundamentally
Reality in the Eyes of Descartes and Berkeley By: Nada Shokry 5/21/2013 AUC - Philosophy Shokry, 2 One person's craziness is another person's reality. Tim Burton This quote best describes what one finds
Florida Philosophical Review Volume IX, Issue 2, Winter 2009 56 The Impact of Neuroscience on the Free Will Debate Stephen G. Morris, College of Staten Island, CUNY I. Introduction The free will debate
Lecture Twelve: The Free Will Problem Philosophy 200 November 27, 2012 I. Administration A. Roll B. Schedule C. Extra credit opportunity D. Long paper discussion E. Thoughts on SF#2 F. Questions? II. The
Is Free Will an Illusion? Confronting Challenges from the Modern Mind Sciences Moral Psychology, vol. 4: Freedom and Responsibility, edited by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Eddy Nahmias Georgia State University
College of Arts and Sciences: Social Science and Humanities Outcomes Communication Information Mgt/ Quantitative Skills Valuing/Ethics/ Integrity Critical Thinking Content Knowledge Application/ Internship
384.126 Logical Foundations of Cognitive Science Harold Boley NRC-IIT Fredericton Faculty of Computer Science University of New Brunswick Canada Institute of Computer Technology, TU Vienna Winter Semester
Pascal s wager So far we have discussed a number of arguments for or against the existence of God. In the reading for today, Pascal asks not Does God exist? but Should we believe in God? What is distinctive
254 Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy Illusionism Determinism Hard Determinism Compatibilism Soft Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Impossibilism Valerian Model Soft Compatibilism The Separability of
What is? The science of behavior and the mind behavior - observable actions of a person or animal mind - thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, memories, dreams, motives and other subjective experiences
Harvard College Program in General Education Faculty of Arts and Sciences Harvard University A Guide to Writing in Ethical Reasoning 15 A Guide to Writing in Ethical Reasoning 15 Professor Jay M. Harris
Page 1 of 5 THE DETERMINISM AND FREEDOM PHILOSOPHY WEBSITE edited by Ted Honderich INTRODUCTION AND INDEX On offer here eventually will be a good selection of the most important pieces of writing on the
Glossary of Key Terms Ad hominem: An argument directed at an opponent in a disagreement, not at the topic under discussion. Agent: One who acts and is held responsible for those actions. Analytic judgment:
Perspectives on Computer Intelligence Can computers think? In attempt to make sense of this question Alan Turing, John Searle and Daniel Dennett put fourth varying arguments in the discussion surrounding
Blutner/Philosophy of Mind/Mind & Body/Cartesian dualism 1 Mind & Body Cartesian Dualism The great philosophical distinction between mind and body can be traced to the Greeks René Descartes (1596-1650),
1/9 Locke 1: Critique of Innate Ideas This week we are going to begin looking at a new area by turning our attention to the work of John Locke, who is probably the most famous English philosopher of all
1 My brain made me do it: The exclusion argument against free will, and what s wrong with it 1 Christian List and Peter Menzies December 2013, final version October 2014 Did I consciously choose coffee
John R. Searle Why I Am Not a Property Dualist I have argued in a number of writings 1 that the philosophical part (though not the neurobiological part) of the traditional mind body problem has a fairly
Chapter 1 What is Psychology? Sociology Social Psychology Psychology Biological Psychology (Neuroscience) Biology Biochemistry Chemistry Physical Chemistry Physics Psychology is a word deriving from Greek
When Betting Odds and Credences Come Apart: More Worries for Dutch Book Arguments Darren BRADLEY and Hannes LEITGEB If an agent believes that the probability of E being true is 1/2, should she accept a
PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM LEARNING GOALS AND OUTCOMES BY COURSE LISTING Psychology 1010: General Psychology Learning Goals and Outcomes LEARNING GOAL 1: KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PSYCHOLOGY Demonstrate familiarity with
AP Psychology 2012 Scoring Guidelines The College Board The College Board is a mission-driven not-for-profit organization that connects students to college success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the
Coffeyville Community College #HUMN-104 COURSE SYLLABUS FOR INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY Mike Arpin Instructor COURSE NUMBER: HUMN-104 COURSE TITLE: Introduction to Philosophy CREDIT HOURS: 3 INSTRUCTOR:
Descartes : The Epistemological Argument for Mind-Body Distinctness Detailed Argument Introduction Despite Descartes mind-body dualism being the most cited aspect of Descartes philosophy in recent philosophical
Hume on identity over time and persons phil 20208 Jeff Speaks October 3, 2006 1 Why we have no idea of the self........................... 1 2 Change and identity................................. 2 3 Hume
Philosophy 110W: Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2011 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class 13 - March 2 Locke s Theory of the Self I. Body and Soul We have discussed two accounts of personal identity:
The psychological theory of persons Last week were discussing dualist views of persons, according to which human beings are immaterial things distinct from their bodies. We closed by discussing some problems
ON EXTERNAL OBJECTS By Immanuel Kant From Critique of Pure Reason (1781) General Observations on The Transcendental Aesthetic To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain, as clearly as possible,
Descartes Meditations Module 3 AQA Meditation I Things which can be called into Doubt Descartes rejects all his beliefs about the external world because they are doubtful and he wants to find a foundation
1. Descartes, Locke and Berkeley all believe that Introduction to Philosophy, Fall 2015 Test 2 Answers a. nothing exists except minds and the ideas in them. b. we can t ever be justified in believing in
CHAPTER 1 WHAT IS PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY? CHAPTER OUTLINE Defining Personality Why Use Personality as a Concept? A Working Definition Two Fundamental Themes in Personality Psychology Theory in Personality
Executive Summary For as long as human beings have deceived one another, people have tried to develop techniques for detecting deception and finding truth. Lie detection took on aspects of modern science
University of New Mexico Undergraduate Programs Plan for Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes A. College, Department and Date 1. College: College of Arts and Sciences 2. Department: Philosophy 3. Date:
Locke s psychological theory of personal identity phil 20208 Jeff Speaks October 3, 2006 1 Identity, diversity, and kinds............................. 1 2 Personal identity...................................
THE AUTONOMY OF PSYCHOLOGY Tim Crane, University College London Psychology has been considered to have an autonomy from the other sciences (especially physical science) in at least two ways: in its subject-matter
The Slate Is Not Empty: Descartes and Locke on Innate Ideas René Descartes and John Locke, two of the principal philosophers who shaped modern philosophy, disagree on several topics; one of them concerns
44 ANALYSIS explicating logical truth, and, thus, also consequence and inconsistency. Let C1 and C2 be distinct moral codes formulated in English. Let C1 contain a norm N and C2 its negation. The moral
1 It is widely accepted by those in the scientific community that women have been systematically disregarded and discriminated against in science. However, the extent to which this has undermined aspirations
Assignment: Research Experiment Instructor Guide UNIT: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Standards that Apply to this Assignment National Standards for High School Psychology Curricula August 2005 Standard Area IA:
Running Head: DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS ON NATURE VS. NURTURE AND HOW 1 Different Psychological Viewpoints on Nature vs. Nurture and how They Explain Human Behavior Tyler D. Hall Mayland Community
Honours programme in Philosophy Honours Programme in Philosophy The Honours Programme in Philosophy offers students a broad and in-depth introduction to the main areas of Western philosophy and the philosophy
DISCUSSION NOTE ATTRACTION, DESCRIPTION AND THE DESIRE-SATISFACTION THEORY OF WELFARE BY EDEN LIN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE OCTOBER 2016 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT EDEN LIN
T e c h n o l o g y & P l a n n i n g Is Your Financial Plan Worth the Paper It s Printed On? By Patrick Sullivan and Dr. David Lazenby, PhD www.scenarionow.com 2002-2005 ScenarioNow Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Arnauld vs. Descartes Theory of Dualism vs. Dualism Descartes Theory is called Dualism Believes Mind and Body are distinct substances Bodies: mechanical, physical objects Minds: for thinking, non-physical
Convention: An interdisciplinary study Luca Tummolini Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies Via San Martino della Battaglia 44 00185 Roma Italy email@example.com In our lives we are
Descartes Handout #2 Meditation II and III I. Meditation II: The Cogito and Certainty A. I think, therefore I am cogito ergo sum In Meditation II Descartes proposes a truth that cannot be undermined by
Ethics in Practice Case Study Analysis Isobel Stevenson Peter, a 32 year old, suffered horrific injuries as the result of the collapse of a bridge over which he was driving his car. He has been classified
Samples of Opening Paragraphs for a Short Philosophy Paper For Illustrative purposes only In what follows, you'll read 3 samples of opening paragraphs. The last example is a whole paper (on a topic totally
Using Retrocausal Practice Effects to Predict On-Line Roulette Spins Michael S. Franklin & Jonathan Schooler UCSB, Department of Psychology Summary Modern physics suggest that time may be symmetric, thus
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 12:08 8 February 2008 Philosophical Psychology Vol. 18, No. 5, October 2005, pp. 561 584 Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions about Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Department of Geography GEO 271 Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things. - Waldo Tobler s First Law of Geography 1.1 Research in Geography [Meaning
DRAFT MANUSCRIPT: 3/31/06 To appear in Analyse & Kritik The Psychology of Justice A Review of Natural Justice by Kenneth Binmore Fiery Cushman 1, Liane Young 1 & Marc Hauser 1,2,3 Departments of 1 Psychology,
Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell Harvard Law School and National Bureau of Economic Research The public at large, many policymakers,
J. T. M. Miller, Department of Philosophy, University of Durham 1 Methodological Issues for Interdisciplinary Research Much of the apparent difficulty of interdisciplinary research stems from the nature
A review on Daniel Hausman (2012): Preference, value, choice, and welfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Aki Lehtinen Preferences as total subjective comparative evaluations I always look forward
ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: LNG2014-1176 Athens Institute for Education and Research ATINER ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2015-1449 Carbon-Based Brain, Consciousness and Choice: A Phenomenological
1 Reading Questions Metaphysics The Philosophy of Religion Arguments for God s Existence Arguments against God s Existence In Case of a Tie Summary Reading Questions Introduction to Metaphysics 1. What
FRAMING EFFECTS A framing effect is usually said to occur when equivalent descriptions of a decision problem lead to systematically different decisions. Framing has been a major topic of research in the
PSYCHOLOGY Professor McKenna Associate Professors Maxwell (chair) and Templeton Assistant Professors Bruininks and Peszka MAJOR A total of 10 courses distributed as follows: PSYC 290 Statistics PSYC 295
HOW TO WRITE A LABORATORY REPORT Pete Bibby Dept of Psychology 1 About Laboratory Reports The writing of laboratory reports is an essential part of the practical course One function of this course is to
Justice and Ethics Jimmy Rising October 18, 2002 1 Introduction Utilitarianism is an ethical system. John Stuart Mill s use of Utilitarianism to determine what is just and what is injustice may seem natural,
Addiction is a Brain Disease By ALAN I. LESHNER, MD A core concept evolving with scientific advances over the past decade is that drug addiction is a brain disease that develops over time as a result of
C H A P T E R 6 Selecting Research Participants OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, students should be able to Define the term sampling frame Describe the difference between random sampling and random
Undergraduate Psychology Major Learning Goals and Outcomes i Goal 1: Knowledge Base of Psychology Demonstrate familiarity with the major concepts, theoretical perspectives, empirical findings, and historical
Does rationality consist in responding correctly to reasons? John Broome Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4 (2007), pp. 349 74. 1. Rationality and responding to reasons Some philosophers think that rationality
WRITING A CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW A critical article review briefly describes the content of an article and, more importantly, provides an in-depth analysis and evaluation of its ideas and purpose. The
Cellphones: Safe or Carcinogenic? With an estimated five billion worldwide users, the public debate over cellphone and the possible link to cancer is one of critical importance. The concern is that cellphones
1 MILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2004 Some people hold that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice and objectionable for that reason. Utilitarianism
Writing Political Theory Papers Political theory is a little bit different than political science. Here are some important differences. 1) It s more like philosophy than social science: it is more concerned
Revista Română de Filosofie Analitică Volumul VI,, Iulie Decembrie 0, pp 7-6 AN ANALYSIS OF KRIPKE S ARGUMENT AGAINST THE IDENTITY THESIS Jason TYNDAL * Abstract : In this paper, I provide a critical analysis
Michael Lacewing Descartes rationalism Descartes Meditations provide an extended study in establishing knowledge through rational intuition and deduction. We focus in this handout on three central claims:
Critical Analysis So what does that REALLY mean? 1 The words critically analyse can cause panic in students when they first turn over their examination paper or are handed their assignment questions. Why?
Experiencing the Present Uriah Kriegel Analysis 75 (2015): 407-413 There are several differences between (i) seeing rain outside one s window and (ii) episodically remembering seeing rain outside one s
ABORTION: THE LEAST OF THREE EVILS UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DYNAMICS OF HOW WOMEN FEEL ABOUT ABORTION A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE VITAE SOCIETY BY KENNY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EXPLORING PSYCHOLOGY David Myers Thinking Critically With Psychological Science Chapter 1 Psychology s Roots Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) Psychological Science is Born Wundt and psychology s first graduate
Mind-Brain Problem and Consciousness Jay Gould 6/15/09 Two Fundamental Positions Regarding the Mind-Brain Problem Dualism The human brain and mind are separate. Known formally as Cartesian Dualism after
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 firstname.lastname@example.org Civil Or Criminal Securities Fraud A Blurry
Colorado State University 1 Department of Psychology Office in Behavioral Sciences Building, Room 201 (970) 491-3799 colostate.edu/depts/psychology (http://www.colostate.edu/depts/ Psychology) Professor
Philosophy 110W - 3: Introduction to Philosophy, Hamilton College, Fall 2007 Russell Marcus, Instructor email: email@example.com website: http://thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/intro_f07/course_home.htm
Int-Sousa (BIB)-45631:Int-Sousa (BIB)-45631 6/17/2008 7:10 PM Page 1 Introduction ARE BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ON THE RISE? Teachers today face many challenges. Not only must they present curriculum content in
Ethics and the Criminal Justice Professional Chapter 6 Policy Making in Criminal Justice Policies: guidelines for action that dictate the priority of goals or efforts Can be formal or informal Formal policy
Split brains, teletransportation, and personal identity phil 20229 Jeff Speaks February 14, 2008 1 What is a theory of personal identity?....................... 1 2 Parfit s example of teletransportation........................
Table of Contents Introduction...4 Meeting and Setting Goals...6 Week 1: The Great Human Questions...9 Week 2: Examining the Ways We Know...15 Week 3: The Christian Worldview...24 Appendix A: The Divine
Chapter 2: Contemporary Theories of Abnormality Learning Objectives Distinguish among biological, psychological, and social approaches to abnormality. Discuss how each approach leads to different conceptions
124 JUSTICE This excerpt is from Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, pp. 124-129, by permission of the publisher. Questions for Kant Kant s moral philosophy is powerful and compelling.
Course Catalog - Spring 2015 Philosophy Philosophy Chair of Department: Kirk Sanders Department Office: 105 Gregory Hall, 810 South Wright, Urbana Phone: 333-2889 www.philosophy.illinois.edu Note: Students